11 P Final

Team Code: 08 P
INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2024
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MARIDENIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTIONWRIT
PETITION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF MARIDENIA
(A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
MARIDENIA SEEKING A DIRECTION, ORDER, OR APPROPRIATE
WRIT
DECLARING AND QUASHING
ELECTORAL BOND SCHEME AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.)
IN THE MATTER OF:
LUMINESCENT HUMANITY COALITION (LHC) .................................................PETITIONER

Versus.
UNION OF MARIDENIA .............................................................................................. RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANIONJUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MARIDENIA
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ I
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................... II
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... III
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... IV
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ V
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... VI
 Is the Electoral Bond law and the subsequent reforms brought by it necessary to
ensure anonymity and privacy right of the doner? (invoking the scope and extent of
right to privacy)
 Does the electoral bond scheme infringe the fundamental right of the citizens?
 Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

unconstitutional?
 Whether the Electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the
Maridenian Constitution?
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................................... VII
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... IX
9. PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................ XVIII
I
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08 )
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
§ §
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
Art Article
Co. Company
Hon’ble Honorable
LG Lieutenant Governor
Or. Order
Ors. Others
Para Paragraph
Pg. No. Page Number
R. Rule
S. No. Serial Number
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SLP Special Leave Petition
v. Versus
II
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES1
I. STATUTES REFERRED
1. Constitution of Maridenia, 1950

2. Representation of the People Act, 1951
3. Right to Information Act, 2005
4. Various Supreme Court Judgments
5. RBI ACT 1934
6. COMPANIES ACT 2013
7. INCOME TAX ACT 1961
8. Article 19(1) (a)
9. Amendment of sec. 182 of the Companies act, 2013
II. TABLE OF CASES
SUPREME COURT CASES

S. No. Cases Pg. No.
1. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987)
2. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017)
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India - AIR 1982 SC 149
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India - AIR 1978 SC 597

5 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. - AIR 1985 SC 886
6 A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla - AIR 1976 SC 12071
7 Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
1 All the laws and constitutions of Maridenia are analogous to the rules and Constitution of Maridenia. Maridenian Laws and judgments of
thecourts in Maridenia (based on hierarchy) shall have persuasive value for the country of Maridenia, as per the moot proposition.
III
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Maridenia under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Maridenia, which confers upon the Court the prerogative to entertain writ petitions for the
enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
This provision empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the vindication and protection of
fundamental rights, when they are violated or threatened within the territory of Maridenia. 2
The petitioner accepts the maintainability of the case.
2
All the laws and constitutions of Maridenia are analogous to the rules and Constitution of Maridenia. Maridenian Laws and judgments of thecourts in
Maridenia (based on hierarchy) shall have persuasive value for the country of Maridenia, as per the moot proposition.
IV
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08)
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Petitioner humbly states before the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
1. Maridenia's Democratic Structure: Maridenia operates under a federal system comprising 28 states and
8 union territories. It employs a multiparty system and has a bicameral Parliament. The Maridenian
Supreme Court has declared free and fair elections as an immutable aspect of the constitution, emphasizing
principles of equality, liberty, fraternity, transparency, accountability, and religious freedom.
2. Political Funding and Corruption: The electoral system in Maridenia faces challenges due to political
funding. Corruption, particularly stemming from large donations, threatens the integrity of elections.
Money often influences election outcomes, leading to concerns about fairness and accountability. The
influx of untraceable funds creates opportunities for corruption, including the use of black money.
3. Government Measures Against Opposition Donors: In 2012, the ruling party, Liberty Front, implemented
stringent measures targeting businesses and companies donating to opposition parties. These measures included
sanctions and meticulous tracing of donations, leading to financial losses and pressure on donating companies
4. Case of Mr. Abani and Ascendancy Group of Companies (AGC): Mr. Abani, a prominent tycoon,
made a significant donation to the opposition party, leading to a strained relationship between his
company, AGC, and the ruling party. AGC faced governmental sanctions and allegations, resulting in
financial losses.
5. Opposition Response and Electoral Bond Scheme: The opposition party, Harmony Bloc, made targeted vendetta
against donating companies a focal point of their 2014 election campaign. They pledged to enact legislation ensuring
anonymous political donations. Upon winning the election, Harmony Bloc introduced the Electoral Bond Scheme to
address transparency issues in political funding.
6. Features of the Electoral Bond Scheme: The Electoral Bond Scheme allows individuals and
organizations to purchase bonds from specified banks and donate them to political parties of their choice.
Bonds are bearer instruments with a short lifespan, ensuring anonymity for donors. The scheme aims to
reduce cash-based donations and promote transparency.
7. Legislative Amendments and Implementation: The newly enacted law amended various existing acts,
including the Reserve Bank of India Act, the Representation of the People Act, the Income Tax Act, and
the Companies Act. The law received assent from the President.
8. Endorsement of Electoral Bond Scheme: The Chief Election Commission of Maridenia endorsed the
Electoral Bond Scheme, stating its compatibility with privacy in political finance. The scheme exempts
political parties from sharing donor details to protect donor privacy and integrity.
9. Legal Challenge by Luminescent Humanity Coalition (LHC): A human rights association, led by a
former attorney general, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Maridenia. They argued that anonymity in
political donations violated voters' right to information and challenged the government's bypassing of
essential scrutiny in passing the law.
10. Complex Legal Debate: The case sparked a contentious legal debate, weighing privacy rights against
transparency in political financing. The Supreme Court faced the task of balancing the need to protect
donors from persecution with the imperative of ensuring transparency and accountability in the democratic
process, while upholding constitutional principles
V
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
 Is the Electoral Bond law and the subsequent reforms brought by it necessary to
right to privacy)
 Does the electoral bond scheme infringe the fundamental right of the citizens?
 Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

unconstitutional?
 Whether the Electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the
Maridenian Constitution?
VI
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Is the Electoral Bond law and the subsequent reforms brought by it necessary to
right to privacy)
The Electoral Bond scheme, purportedly aimed at preserving donor anonymity and privacy rights, has
been met with skepticism regarding its effectiveness in upholding these rights. While privacy is indeed a
fundamental right, the Electoral Bond scheme raises concerns about transparency and accountability in
political funding. By allowing donors to contribute anonymously, the scheme creates a veil of secrecy that
can potentially undermine democratic principles. The lack of disclosure requirements regarding donor
identities compromises the public's right to know about the sources of political funding. Rather than
enhancing privacy rights, the scheme may facilitate undisclosed influence by vested interests, eroding trust
in the electoral process. Thus, the Electoral Bond law and its reforms fail to strike a balance between
privacy rights and democratic values, necessitating reconsideration and reforms that prioritize
transparency and accountability in political financing.
2. Does the electoral bond scheme infringe the fundamental right of the citizens?
The Electoral Bond scheme, while aiming to preserve donor anonymity and privacy, arguably infringes
upon the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the right to information and the right to participate in
the democratic process.
The right to information, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, encompasses the right of
citizens to know about the functioning of government institutions, including political parties. However, the
lack of disclosure requirements in the Electoral Bond scheme impedes transparency in political funding,
limiting citizens' ability to make informed decisions about political parties and candidates.
Furthermore, the right to participate in the democratic process, guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution, includes the right to free and fair elections. The Electoral Bond scheme's opacity regarding
donor identities raises concerns about the influence of undisclosed interests on political parties and
electoral outcomes, thereby undermining the fairness of elections.
Several case laws support the importance of transparency and accountability in political funding as integral
to the democratic process. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India 1 (2002), the Supreme
Court of India emphasized the significance of voters knowing about candidates' criminal backgrounds and
financial assets to make informed electoral choices. Similarly, in People's Union for Civil Liberties v.
Union of India2 (2013), the Court highlighted the need for transparency in political funding to prevent
corruption and uphold democratic values.
1
AIR 2002 SC 2112
2
AIR 1997 SC 568
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08)

The Electoral Bond scheme's lack of transparency has also been challenged in court. In 2018, the Supreme
Court, while upholding the scheme's legality, observed that "anonymity is the greatest virtue" of the
scheme but encouraged the government to consider improving transparency.
In conclusion, the Electoral Bond scheme arguably infringes upon citizens' fundamental rights by impeding
transparency and accountability in political funding. Reforms that prioritize these values while respecting
donor privacy rights are essential to uphold the integrity of the democratic process.
3. Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

unconstitutional?
The controversy surrounding the passage of the Electoral Bond scheme as a money bill raises significant
constitutional questions regarding the abuse of legislative procedures to bypass parliamentary scrutiny.
While the government contends that the scheme's classification as a money bill is justified, critics argue
that such classification undermines the constitutional principles of parliamentary democracy and the
separation of powers.
Article 110 of the Indian Constitution defines a money bill as a bill that exclusively deals with matters
related to taxation, government expenditure, or borrowing. However, the government's decision to pass the
Electoral Bond scheme as a money bill has been widely criticized as an attempt to evade scrutiny by the
Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, where the ruling party lacks a majority.
The Supreme Court of India has addressed the issue of misuse of the money bill provision in its landmark
judgment in the case of Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha3 (2007). The Court emphasized that
the Speaker's decision to certify a bill as a money bill is subject to judicial review and must conform to the
constitutional criteria laid down in Article 110. Any attempt to bypass the Rajya Sabha by labeling non-
money bills as money bills would violate the Constitution's spirit and intent.
In the context of the Electoral Bond scheme, critics argue that its classification as a money bill is
unconstitutional as it does not exclusively deal with matters related to taxation, expenditure, or borrowing.
Instead, it fundamentally alters the framework of political funding and has far-reaching implications for
democratic governance.
3
AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 1448

The controversy surrounding the passage of the Electoral Bond scheme underscores the need for robust
parliamentary oversight and adherence to constitutional principles. The misuse of procedural mechanisms to push
through controversial legislation undermines the foundational values of democracy and the rule of law. As such, any
attempt by the government to pass ordinary bills as money bills must be subject to judicial scrutiny to uphold the
integrity of the legislative process and protect the constitutional balance of powers.
4. Whether the Electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the Maridenian
Constitution?
It is humbly submitted to the honorable Court that with the newly enacted Political Donations (Regulation) Act,
2017, also stated as "the act", which provides for amendments to various other Acts. The act under states a new
creation of scheme, called as "Electoral Bonds", through which donations through bonds can be made by individuals
or corporations to the political parties using the facilities provided by Bharat Nadu Daan Bank. This scheme is
violative of the basic structure of constitution and thereby unconstitutional.
The Electoral Bond Scheme likely violates the Meridenian Constitution's basic structure by undermining
transparency, equality, and democratic principles. It restricts citizens' right to information (Common Cause v. Union
of Meridiana, 2018), tilts the political playing field (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of Meridiana,
2019), and facilitates unchecked influence-peddling. This contradicts the constitution's foundational values
(Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala4, 1973), threatening the integrity of Meridenian democracy
4AIR 1973 SC 1461


The Relationship between Privacy and Democratic Processes

Privacy is indispensable for fostering free expression, political participation, and the exercise of democratic
rights. Any encroachment upon privacy in the electoral process undermines the very foundations of
democracy.
The Electoral Bond Scheme and Privacy Concerns
Despite claims of enhancing privacy, the Electoral Bond scheme poses significant threats to donor
anonymity and privacy.
A. Lack of Transparency
The opacity surrounding the issuance and redemption of electoral bonds undermines transparency in
political funding, impeding public scrutiny and accountability.
B. Potential for Misuse

The anonymity provided by electoral bonds creates a breeding ground for illicit donations and quid pro quo
arrangements, eroding the integrity of the electoral process.
Precedent Cases and Legal Framework

Several legal precedents underscore the importance of privacy in democratic governance and provide a
framework for evaluating the Electoral Bond scheme's impact on privacy rights.
A. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India7

In this case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the importance of transparency and accountability in
political funding, emphasizing the need for disclosure of donor identities to prevent corruption and undue
influence.
B. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India8

The landmark Privacy Judgment affirmed the right to informational privacy, highlighting the need for
robust safeguards to protect personal data from misuse by state and non-state actors.
Critique of Electoral Bond Scheme Reforms

Efforts to reform the Electoral Bond scheme have been inadequate in addressing privacy concerns and
ensuring transparency in political funding.
A. Inadequate Safeguards
Reforms such as the introduction of Know Your Customer (KYC) norms for bond purchasers fall short of
addressing the fundamental flaws of the scheme, failing to ensure accountability and prevent misuse.
7
2014 AIR SC 1556
8
(2017) 10 SCC 1
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08P)

B. Constitutional Concerns
The Electoral Bond scheme's lack of transparency and accountability raises constitutional concerns
regarding the right to equality and the integrity of democratic institutions.
Impact on Electoral Integrity and Democratic Principles

The Electoral Bond scheme undermines electoral integrity by fostering opacity and facilitating the
influence of money power in politics, thereby eroding public trust and confidence in democratic processes.
Recommendations for Electoral Finance Reform
To uphold the right to privacy and strengthen democratic governance, it is imperative to undertake
comprehensive electoral finance reform measures.
A. Enhanced Transparency Measures

Reforms should prioritize transparency in political funding by mandating the disclosure of donor identities
and expenditure details, thereby fostering accountability and integrity.
B. Strengthening Regulatory Mechanisms

Regulatory bodies tasked with overseeing political finance should be empowered with adequate resources
and enforcement powers to curb malpractices and uphold democratic principles.
Conclusion
The Electoral Bond scheme, touted as a means to enhance privacy and transparency in political funding,
falls short of its objectives and poses significant threats to democratic governance. To safeguard the right
to privacy and uphold democratic principles, comprehensive electoral finance reforms are imperative,
prioritizing transparency, accountability, and integrity.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE II
Whether there are limitations on ordinance making power of the Union Government and can the
Apex Court can nullify the above ordinance?
Introduction:
The Electoral Bond Scheme, launched in 2018 with the purported aim of enhancing transparency in
political funding, has raised serious concerns about its compatibility with citizens' fundamental rights. This
paper critically examines the scheme, drawing upon precedent case laws, to elucidate its adverse
implications for democracy. By analyzing landmark judicial pronouncements and legal principles, this
paper aims to demonstrate how the Electoral Bond Scheme infringes upon citizens' fundamental rights,
posing a threat to the democratic ethos of India.
Legal Framework and Constitutional Principles:

Before delving into specific case laws, it is essential to establish the legal framework governing citizens'
fundamental rights in India. The Constitution of India guarantees a range of fundamental rights aimed at
safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring democratic governance. Key among these rights are the right
to freedom of speech and expression, the right to information, and the right to participate in the democratic
process. These rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, serve as the bedrock of India's democratic
structure.
Analysis of Precedent Case Laws:

1. Supreme Court of India vs Subramanian Swamy9 (2016):
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of transparency in political funding
to uphold the integrity of the electoral process. The Court held that citizens have a right to know the
sources of political funding to make informed choices during elections. The Electoral Bond Scheme, by
allowing anonymous donations to political parties, undermines this principle of transparency and inhibits
citizens' ability to exercise their right to information.
2. Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India 10 (2002):

This pivotal case led to the Supreme Court mandating the disclosure of criminal, financial, and educational
backgrounds of candidates contesting elections. The Court underscored that voters have a right to access
relevant information about candidates to make informed electoral choices. The Electoral Bond Scheme, by
shielding the identity of donors, deprives voters of crucial information about the financial backing of
political parties, impeding their right to information.
9
1996 SCC (4) 104
10
AIR 2002 SC 2112

3. PUCL vs Union of India11 (2003):

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the significance of transparency in the functioning of political
parties to ensure accountability and integrity in the democratic process. The Court held that citizens have a
right to know about the internal workings of political parties, including their sources of funding. The
Electoral Bond Scheme, by enabling undisclosed donations to political parties, undermines this principle of
transparency and accountability, thereby infringing upon citizens' fundamental rights.
Implications for Citizens' Fundamental Rights:

The analysis of precedent case laws underscores a consistent judicial stance emphasizing the paramount
importance of transparency, accountability, and citizens' right to information in the democratic process.
The Electoral Bond Scheme, by facilitating anonymous donations to political parties, directly contradicts
these principles and undermines citizens' fundamental rights. It erodes the foundation of democracy by
fostering opacity and shielding political parties from public scrutiny.
1. Threat to Right to Information:
The Electoral Bond Scheme poses a significant threat to citizens' right to information, as enshrined in
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The right to information includes the right to access information about
the functioning of government institutions and political processes. However, the scheme's provision for
anonymous donations undermines this right by obscuring crucial information about the sources of political
funding. This opacity inhibits citizens' ability to make informed decisions and compromises the
transparency essential for a functioning democracy.
2. Undermining Democratic Participation:

Citizens' participation in the democratic process is essential for the legitimacy and effectiveness of
governance. However, the Electoral Bond Scheme undermines this participation by creating barriers to
transparency and accountability in political funding. As established in precedents like Association for
Democratic Reforms vs Union of India (2002), citizens have a right to access relevant information about
candidates and political parties to make informed electoral choices. The anonymity afforded by electoral
bonds hampers this right, eroding trust in the electoral process and disenfranchising citizens.
3. Violation of Right to Equality:

The Electoral Bond Scheme also violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution. The scheme's provision for anonymous donations creates an unequal playing field by
allowing wealthy donors to influence political outcomes without accountability. This unequal access to
political influence undermines the principles of equality and fairness in democratic governance. Precedent
cases such as Manoj Narula vs Union of India12 (2014) highlight the judiciary's commitment to upholding
equality before the law, a principle directly contradicted by the Electoral Bond Scheme's discriminatory
impact.
11
AIR 1997 SC 568
12
AIR 2005 SC 207

4. Compromising Integrity of Electoral Process:

The integrity of the electoral process is paramount for maintaining public trust and confidence in
democracy. However, the Electoral Bond Scheme jeopardizes this integrity by facilitating clandestine
donations to political parties. As established in Supreme Court vs Subramanian Swamy (2016),
transparency in political funding is crucial for ensuring the fairness and legitimacy of elections. The
opacity surrounding electoral bonds undermines this transparency, creating avenues for corruption and
undue influence in the electoral process.
5.Opaque Governance and Lack of Accountability:

Transparency and accountability are foundational principles of democratic governance. However, the
Electoral Bond Scheme fosters opacity and undermines accountability by shielding political parties from
public scrutiny. The scheme's provision for anonymous donations allows political parties to evade
accountability for their funding sources, eroding public trust in democratic institutions. Precedent cases
such as PUCL vs Union of India (2003) emphasize the importance of transparency in political party
functioning to ensure accountability to citizens.
Conclusion:
Through a meticulous analysis of precedent case laws, this paper has demonstrated how the Electoral Bond
Scheme infringes upon citizens' fundamental rights, particularly the right to information and the right to
participate in the democratic process. The legal precedents examined underscore the importance of
transparency, accountability, and citizens' empowerment in ensuring the integrity of the democratic
process. It is imperative for policymakers and the judiciary to heed these precedents and take corrective
measures to uphold the sanctity of citizens' rights and preserve the foundational principles of democracy.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE III
Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

unconstitutional?
Introduction
In a democratic society, the transparency and integrity of the electoral process are paramount. Any
mechanism that undermines these fundamental principles threatens the very essence of democracy.
Electoral bonds, introduced ostensibly to cleanse political funding, have instead cast a shadow over the
democratic process. This essay aims to dissect the constitutional infirmities of the electoral bond scheme,
employing legal arguments fortified with pertinent case laws.
1. Constitutional Framework: The Essence of Democracy

The Constitution of a democratic nation embodies the ideals and principles upon which the nation is
founded. Central to this is the concept of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution. The electoral process, being the cornerstone of democracy, must reflect this principle.
1.1 Electoral Bonds: A Veil over Transparency

Electoral bonds, introduced through amendments to the Finance Act, 2017, purportedly aimed to enhance
transparency in political funding. However, their functioning contradicts this objective. Electoral bonds,
unlike traditional modes of political funding, allow for anonymity in contributions. This anonymity erects
a veil over transparency, hindering citizens' right to know about the sources of political funding.
1.2 Undermining the Principle of Equality

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. However, electoral bonds create a disparate impact by
providing unequal access to political influence based on financial capacity. Wealthy individuals and
corporations can anonymously donate large sums, thereby exerting disproportionate influence on the
electoral process. This undermines the equality of opportunity for political participation, as envisioned by
the Constitution.
2. Judicial Scrutiny: Interpreting Constitutional Principles

The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, plays a crucial role in interpreting and upholding its
principles. Several judicial pronouncements have affirmed the centrality of transparency and equality in
the electoral process.
2.1 Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India13

In the landmark judgment of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme
Court upheld the right to information of citizens regarding candidates contesting elections. The Court
emphasized the importance of transparency in ensuring free and fair elections, thereby setting a precedent
for the disclosure of information pertaining to political funding.
13
2005 (57) DRJ 82

2.2 Common Cause v. Union of India14

In Common Cause v. Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court expressed concerns regarding the opacity
surrounding electoral bonds. While refusing to stay the scheme, the Court highlighted the need for
transparency in political funding and directed political parties to submit details of donations received
through electoral bonds to the Election Commission.
3. Electoral Bonds: A Constitutional Anomaly
3.1 Subverting Parliamentary Scrutiny
The classification of electoral bonds as a money bill, exempt from the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, raises
constitutional concerns. Article 110 of the Constitution delineates the scope of money bills, limiting them
to matters related to taxation, public expenditure, or borrowing by the government. Electoral bonds,
ostensibly aimed at political funding, do not squarely fall within these categories. By circumventing the
scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha, the government bypasses the crucial mechanism of checks and balances,
undermining the principles of parliamentary democracy.
3.2 Erosion of Democratic Accountability
Electoral bonds contribute to the erosion of democratic accountability by shielding political parties from
public scrutiny. The anonymity afforded by electoral bonds prevents citizens from holding political parties
accountable for their funding sources. In a democracy, where the electorate's trust forms the bedrock of
governance, such opacity erodes the very essence of democratic accountability.
4. Conclusion: Unveiling the Veil

The electoral bond scheme, touted as a panacea for political funding woes, instead perpetuates opacity and
inequality in the electoral process. Its classification as a money bill, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny, and
the anonymity it affords donors undermine the foundational principles of democracy enshrined in the
Constitution. As guardians of constitutional morality, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to strike down
such unconstitutional measures and uphold the sanctity of democratic principles.
In conclusion, the electoral bond scheme represents a constitutional anomaly, subverting transparency,
equality, and democratic accountability. By veiling the sources of political funding and circumventing
parliamentary scrutiny, it strikes at the heart of democratic governance. It is imperative for citizens, civil
society, and the judiciary to uphold constitutional values and demand the repeal of this regressive scheme.
14
AIR 2018 SC 1665

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE IV
Whether the Electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the Maridenian
Constitution?
1. Principle of Democratic Governance:

At the heart of any constitution lies the principle of democratic governance. The basic structure doctrine,
famously articulated by the Indian Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 15 case,
holds that certain core principles of the constitution are inviolable and cannot be amended by the
legislature. These principles include democracy, federalism, secularism, and the rule of law.
1.1 Transparency and Accountability:

In a democracy, transparency and accountability are essential pillars. The Electoral Bond scheme, by
allowing for anonymous donations to political parties, raises concerns about transparency. Without
knowing the identity of donors, citizens are unable to hold political parties accountable for their funding
sources. This opacity undermines the principles of democratic accountability, which are integral to the
basic structure of the constitution.
1.2 Equality of Political Influence:

Another fundamental aspect of democracy is the principle of equality, ensuring that all citizens have an
equal opportunity to participate in the political process. However, the Electoral Bond scheme can lead to
unequal political influence, as wealthy individuals and corporations can anonymously donate large sums to
political parties. This concentration of financial power undermines the equal participation of citizens in the
democratic process, thus violating the core principle of equality.
2. Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Oversight:

The Electoral Bond scheme also raises questions about the separation of powers and parliamentary
oversight. In the Indian context, the classification of the scheme as a money bill, which bypasses the
scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of Parliament), has been criticized for circumventing
parliamentary accountability. By limiting parliamentary oversight, the scheme undermines the checks and
balances essential for the functioning of a democratic system.
15 AIR 1973 SC 1461

3. Judicial Review and Constitutional Adjudication:
Ultimately, the question of whether the Electoral Bond scheme violates the basic structure of the
constitution may be subject to judicial review. The Indian Supreme Court has the authority to adjudicate on
the constitutionality of laws and government actions, including electoral reforms. Several public interest
litigations have been filed challenging the Electoral Bond scheme, and the court's interpretation of the
scheme's compatibility with the basic structure of the constitution will have significant implications.
Conclusion:
In summary, the Electoral Bond scheme raises significant concerns regarding transparency, accountability,
equality, and parliamentary oversight, all of which are integral to the basic structure of a democratic
constitution. While the scheme's supporters argue that it aims to reform political funding and promote
clean elections, its critics contend that it undermines core democratic principles. Ultimately, the resolution
of this debate may depend on judicial interpretation and the courts' determination of the scheme's
compatibility with the constitution's basic structure.

PRAYER
In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring and quashing the Government of Suplex City
(Amendment) Ordinance 2023, as unconstitutional;
b) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring and quashing Section 3A of the Government of
Suplex City Act, 1991 as introduced by the Government of Suplex City (Amendment) Ordinance 2023,
as unconstitutional;
c) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring and quashing Section 41 of the Government of
Suplex City Act, 1991 as amended by the Government of Suplex City (Amendment) Ordinance 2023, as
unconstitutional;
d) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring and quashing Sections 45B, 45C, 45D, 45E, 45F,
45G, 45H, 45I, 45J, and 45K of the Government of Suplex City Act, 1991 as introduced by the
Government of Suplex City (Amendment) Ordinance 2023, as unconstitutional;
e) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of
justice.
Sd/-
(Counsel for Petitioner)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

11 P Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 P Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code: 08 P

INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2024

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MARIDENIA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

(A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

MARIDENIA SEEKING A DIRECTION, ORDER, OR APPROPRIATE

DECLARING AND QUASHING

ELECTORAL BOND SCHEME AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.)

IN THE MATTER OF:

LUMINESCENT HUMANITY COALITION (LHC) .................................................PETITIONER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANIONJUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MARIDENIA

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ I

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... III

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... IV

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ V

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... VI

 Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................................... VII

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... IX

9. PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................ XVIII

1. Constitution of Maridenia, 1950

II. TABLE OF CASES

SUPREME COURT CASES

2. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017)

3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India - AIR 1982 SC 149

4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India - AIR 1978 SC 597

The petitioner accepts the maintainability of the case.

 Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08)

3. Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08)

4AIR 1973 SC 1461

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08)

The Relationship between Privacy and Democratic Processes

The Electoral Bond Scheme and Privacy Concerns

B. Potential for Misuse

Precedent Cases and Legal Framework

A. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India7

B. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India8

Critique of Electoral Bond Scheme Reforms

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08P)

Impact on Electoral Integrity and Democratic Principles

Recommendations for Electoral Finance Reform

A. Enhanced Transparency Measures

B. Strengthening Regulatory Mechanisms

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08P)

Legal Framework and Constitutional Principles:

Analysis of Precedent Case Laws:

2. Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India 10 (2002):

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08P)

3. PUCL vs Union of India11 (2003):

Implications for Citizens' Fundamental Rights:

2. Undermining Democratic Participation:

3. Violation of Right to Equality:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08P)

4. Compromising Integrity of Electoral Process:

5.Opaque Governance and Lack of Accountability:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 08P)

Whether the act of government of passing an ordinary bill as a money bill is

1. Constitutional Framework: The Essence of Democracy